Citation Nr: 21031309 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-08 376 DATE: May 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a hearing loss disability that has been shown to be etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1985 to January 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The matter was remanded by the Board in March 2020 for further development. Bilateral hearing loss In general, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Hearing loss is not deemed disabling for VA purposes unless the claimed hearing loss is of a particular level of severity. In that regard, hearing impairment will be considered a disability only when the pure tone threshold for any of the frequencies at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; the thresholds at three of these frequencies are 26 or greater; or, speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Service connection may also be awarded for certain listed chronic diseases under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) on a presumptive basis even in the absence of evidence showing the onset of that disability during service, provided that such disability is shown as having been manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). The Veteran asserts that he has hearing loss that resulted from in service acoustic trauma due to exposure to tanks in service. See December 2014 Claim for hearing loss. The Veteran was most recently afforded a VA examination in which he was diagnosed with bilateral hearing loss. See January 2021 VA Examination Report. The service treatment records contain no evidence that the Veteran's hearing loss began during his period of active duty service. In this regard, these records reflect that the Veteran denied having any hearing related difficulties during his physical examinations and did not seek treatment for any hearing related problems. Of note, on his November 1987 separation report of medical history, the Veteran marked "no" when asked if he had hearing loss. In November 2018, VA received an October 2018 private audiometric chart. There is no opinion associated with that record. The January 2021 examiner stated the Veteran's hearing loss at the VA examination was less likely than not the result of military noise exposure. The examiner found that the Veteran's claim file showed normal hearing at his November 1987 separation examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran was exposed to the loud sounds of turbines, diesel engines, generators and tank guns, but his separation audiogram revealed normal hearing with no significant threshold shifts when compared to his July 1984 enlistment audiogram. He addressed the October 2018 audio examination which showed that the Veteran had hearing loss according to VA guidelines, and that he was not limited in any way from any physical activity. The Board finds this opinion probative as it is based on a review of the Veteran's relevant medical records, consideration of his contentions, and the expertise of the audiologist. With regard to the Veteran's assertions, the Board observes that the Veteran makes no contention that his hearing loss has been chronic or ongoing since his period of service. Rather, he asserts that his hearing began due to his in-service acoustic trauma, including due to the noise of tanks. Hearing loss is a disorder that is susceptible to a number of causes and factors. For that reason, the question as to the etiology or cause of hearing loss is a complex medical question that requires the application of learned medical and audiological principles. As such, the Veteran is not competent to render a probative opinion as to the etiology or cause of his hearing loss and the Board does not assign his assertions in that regard any probative weight. The preponderance of the evidence in this case shows that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not incurred during his active duty service, was not manifest to any degree within a year from his separation from service and did not result from an in-service injury or event, to include acoustic trauma. Accordingly, the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nadia Kamal, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.